42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal laws.

Daniels v. Murphy · filed 1978-06-30

There are two essential elements to stating a claim under § 1983: (1) the conduct complained of was by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct complained of deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a deprivation of civil rights under color of state law.

Cafano v. Cimmino · filed 1980-03-27

In order to state a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege a deprivation of his civil rights under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires action under color of state law that deprives a person of a constitutional right.

Croushorn v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Tenn. · filed 1980-06-19

To establish defendants’ liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must prove two essential elements: (1) that defendants acted under color of state law and (2) that he suffered a deprivation of a constitutional right as a result of that action.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege state action that deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Waterstraat v. Central State Hospital · filed 1982-02-12

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, two essential elements must be alleged. First, there must be conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law; secondly, that conduct must have deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 allows a person to sue for deprivation of a federally protected right by someone acting under color of state law.

Barrett v. United States · filed 1982-09-13

In order to make out a valid § 1983 claim for their own injuries plaintiffs must demonstrate that: (1) the defendants subjected them to the deprivation of a federally protected right, (2) the defendants were acting under color of state law, and (3) plaintiffs are “persons” as that term is used in the statute with reference to injured parties.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federally secured right under color of state law to state a claim for relief.

Buxton v. Lovell · filed 1983-02-01

To state a sufficient claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege that the defendants have deprived him of federally secured rights and that the deprivation was accomplished under color of state law. ... Therefore, the complaint sufficiently states a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of federal rights by a person acting under color of state law.

Morrison v. Washington County, Alabama · filed 1983-03-17

In considering the civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the district court correctly noted that there are two elements essential to such a claim: 1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and 2) that the conduct deprived a person of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 permits an action against state employees who, while acting under color of state law, deprive a person of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Gelber by and Through Gelber v. Rozas · filed 1984-05-14

Those are sufficient allegations to maintain an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show a violation of constitutional or federal statutory rights by a person acting under color of state law.

Fifield v. Barrancotta · filed 2008-04-21

In order to maintain a claim under Section 1983, Fifield must show that the defendants violated his Constitutional or federal statutory rights — here, Fifield’s Fourth Amendment right to personal security and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure — and did so while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a federal right by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Cardo v. Lakeland Central School District · filed 1984-06-15

A claim upon which relief can be granted under section 1983 must contain two elements. Plaintiff first must show that he has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law. Secondly, plaintiff must show that defendants deprived him of this right while “acting under color” of a state statute.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff opposing judgment on the pleadings to allege conduct under color of state law that deprived the plaintiff of federally protected rights.

Meola v. MacHado · filed 1984-10-05

In order to defeat this motion, plaintiff must allege facts which, if proved, would establish that the conduct complained of was committed under color of state law and that this conduct deprived the plaintiff of federal and constitutional rights, privileges or immunities. ... Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED with respect to the plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a defendant acted under color of state law to deprive the plaintiff of a right secured by federal law.

Anglin v. City of Aspen · filed 2008-05-01

Thus, to establish a violation of Section 1983, Plaintiff must prove that: (1) Defendants acted under color of state law to deprive her of a right; and (2) that right was secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove deprivation of a federal right and that the defendant acted under color of law.

Pesek v. Marzullo · filed 2008-07-22

To succeed on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish the defendant(s) deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or any law of the United States and that the deprivation of that right resulted from the defendant(s) acting under color of law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show a constitutional deprivation caused by a person acting under color of state law.

GARAGHER v. Marzullo · filed 2008-07-23

In the face of such a glaring omission by plaintiff, I grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the remaining § 1983 claims as plaintiff has failed to establish (1) Frank Marzullo caused Garagher to be restrained or struck in any way, i.e., caused a constitutional deprivation; and (2) any of the remaining defendants was acting under color of law or in concert with a state actor with respect to their alleged conduct towards Garagher.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a federal right caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Phillips v. Roane County, Tenn. · filed 2008-07-25

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must set forth facts that, when construed favorably, establish (1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States (2) caused by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a federal right caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Phillips v. TN · filed 2008-07-25

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must set forth facts that, when construed favorably, establish (1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States (2) caused by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show a violation of a federal right and deprivation by a person acting under color of state law.

James v. Collin County Texas · filed 2008-08-01

To state a section 1983 claim, “a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and (2) demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”

Section 1983 provides a claim against defendants who, under color of state law, deprive a person of a constitutional right.

Fisher v. Lynch · filed 2008-08-11

To recover on a claim under Section 1983, plaintiff must prove that defendants deprived him of a constitutional right and that they acted under color of state law in doing so.

Section 1983 conspiracy claims require an agreement, concerted action to cause an unconstitutional injury, and an overt act causing damages.

Brady v. Dammer · filed 2008-08-13

To prevail on a § 1983 conspiracy claim, Plaintiff must prove “(1) an agreement between two or more state actors or between a state actor and a private entity; (2) to act in concert to inflict an unconstitutional injury; and (3) an overt act done in furtherance of that goal causing damages.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a constitutional or federal statutory right caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Mabry v. Antonini · filed 2008-08-13

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must set forth facts that, when construed favorably, establish (1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States (2) caused by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 lets a person sue someone acting under color of state law for depriving them of federal constitutional or statutory rights.

Balliet v. Whitmire · filed 1986-01-08

To establish a valid claim under § 1983, a claimant must show: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed, by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a claimant to show that a person acting under color of state law deprived someone of a federal right.

Hernandez v. York County · filed 2008-08-20

In order to establish a §1983 civil rights claim, a claimant must show: “(1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federally protected right by a defendant acting under color of state law.

American Ass'n of People With Disabilities v. Herrera · filed 2008-09-17

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating two elements: (i) the plaintiff was deprived of a right that federal law protects; and (ii) the defendant of deprived of that right did so under color of state law.

Section 1983 permits a person to sue for deprivation of a federal right by a state official acting under color of state law.

Kelso v. City of Toledo · filed 2008-10-01

To make out a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a party must allege the deprivation of a federal right by a state official acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Figueroa v. City of Camden · filed 2008-10-02

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to plead facts showing that a defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal right.

Holguin v. Journal · filed 2008-11-06

The district court properly dismissed the action because Holguin’s complaint did not allege facts to show that the defendant acted under color of state law or deprived Holguin of a constitutional or federal right. See Lopez v. Dept. of Health Servs., 939 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir.1991) (stating that to obtain relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must plead that the defendants acting under color of state law deprived plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes).

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to establish a constitutional deprivation intentionally caused by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Messer v. Indiana State Police · filed 2008-11-12

To prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he had a constitutionally protected right, (2) he was deprived of that right in violation of the Constitution, (3) the defendant(s) intentionally caused that deprivation and (4) the defendant(s) acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant violated a federal right while acting under color of state law.

Woosley v. City of Paris · filed 2008-12-04

In order to state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must show that Defendant Cornett (1) violated one or more of his constitutional or federal statutory rights while (2) acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires proof that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Grosjean v. Bommarito · filed 2008-12-04

In making a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Grosjeans must present sufficient evidence to show (1) that they were deprived of a right secured by the federal Constitution or other federal law, and (2) that the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law.

A § 1983 plaintiff must prove that a state actor infringed a constitutional right.

Romero v. Lann · filed 2008-12-29

To raise a valid § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove that a state actor infringed his constitutional rights.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Rodriguez v. Rutter · filed 2009-02-09

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law and (2) demonstrate the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to establish a deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under color of state law.

Bonneville v. Pierce County · filed 2009-02-10

To maintain a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) some person deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the person acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a defendant deprived the plaintiff of a federal right while acting under color of state law.

Adamson v. Volkmer · filed 1987-12-18

For the plaintiffs § 1983 claim against Hall and LeDeur to be successful, he need only establish that those defendants deprived him of a federal right and that they did so under color of law.

Section 1983 requires a defendant to act under color of state law and deprive the plaintiff of a constitutional right, privilege, or immunity.

Cooper v. State of Utah · filed 1987-12-21

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, Cooper must allege two elements: (1) that the defendants were acting under color of state law, and (2) that their conduct subjected him or caused him to be subjected to a deprivation of some right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person deprived them of a federal right.

Rivera v. Diaz · filed 1988-02-03

In order to state a claim cognizable under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege “that some person has deprived him of a federal right.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Wood v. Steven C. Ostrander Neil Maloney · filed 1988-07-13

To sustain an action under § 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Moreno v. City of New Haven Department of Police Service · filed 2009-03-09

Under § 1983 a plaintiff must demonstrate that he was subjected to the “deprivation of a[ ] right[ ], privilege[ ], or immunit[y] secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to sue a person acting under color of state law who deprives the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Demery v. Montgomery County, Md. · filed 2009-03-18

To state a proper claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the defendant was acting under color of state law when the defendant committed the actions the plaintiff complains of, and (2) that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Demery v. Montgomery County, Maryland · filed 2009-03-18

To state a proper claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the defendant was acting under color of state law when the defendant committed the actions the plaintiff complains of, and (2) that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a method to vindicate federal rights and requires deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Democracy Rising PA v. Celluci · filed 2009-03-20

To establish a claim under this section, the plaintiff must show the deprivation of a “right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States ... by a person acting under color of state law.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Patricia J. Barry Charlene Karr v. Fowler · filed 1990-05-10

To state a cause of action under section 1983, Barry must show that (1) Fowler acted under color of state law; and (2) Fowler deprived her of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove a violation of a constitutional right, and negligence may be insufficient depending on the right involved.

Small v. Weekly · filed 1990-10-22

To prevail on his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Plaintiff must prove a violation of a constitutional right. Depending upon the right involved, mere negligent conduct may not be enough to state a claim.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show a deprivation of federal rights caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Slater v. Susquehanna County · filed 2009-03-30

In order to succeed on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) that he was deprived of his rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States due to (2) the conduct of a person acting under color of state law.”

Section 1983 requires a complaint to allege that a person acting under color of state law caused the deprivation of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Jones v. Lieber · filed 2009-03-30

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege facts sufficient to show that (1) a person (2) acting under color of state, territorial, or District of Columbia law (3) subjected the plaintiff or caused the plaintiff to be subjected (4) to the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a complaint to allege that a person acting under state, territorial, or District of Columbia law caused the deprivation of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Jackman v. United States of America · filed 2009-03-30

To state a claim under § 1983 for a violation of one’s constitutional protections, a complaint must allege facts sufficient to support a reasonable inference that (1) a person (2) acting under color of state, territorial, or District of Columbia law (3) subjected the plaintiff or caused the plaintiff to be subjected (4) to the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 creates a federal cause of action for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law.

Jadwin v. County of Kern · filed 2009-04-08

Section 1983 creates a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of federal rights by a person acting under color of state law.

Kossie v. Crain · filed 2009-04-09

The Supreme Court has established that “[t]o state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show a protected right, a constitutional deprivation, intentional causation, and action under color of law.

Rangel v. Reynolds · filed 2009-04-09

To prevail on a claim under section 1983, Plaintiffs must show the following: (1) they held a constitutionally protected right; (2) they were deprived of this right in violation of the Constitution; (3) the Defendants intentionally caused this deprivation; and (4) the Defendants acted under color of law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show a violation of a constitutional or federal statutory right by a person acting under color of state law.

KERCADO-CLYMER v. City of Amsterdam · filed 2009-04-10

In order to prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, a plaintiff must establish the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege facts supporting a deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Lafayette Brown v. City of Pittsburgh · filed 2009-04-21

To proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Even construing Brown’s pro se complaint liberally, Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004), Brown’s allegations are inadequate to state a § 1983 claim against the City. Although Brown cites to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Brown fails to set forth any facts supporting a constitutional deprivation.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a federally protected right by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Gardetto v. Mason · filed 1994-06-07

Thus, it is apparent that in order to establish a prima facie violation of this statute, the plaintiff must allege that he was subjected to the deprivation of a federally protected right by the defendant, and that the defendant’s actions were taken “under color of state law.”

Section 1983 provides a cause of action when a person acting under color of state law deprives someone of a federally protected right.

Schwartz v. Pridy · filed 1995-01-18

To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (a) he has been deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by federal constitutional or statutory provisions and (b) the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires plaintiffs to allege action under color of state law depriving them of constitutional rights and to identify specific conduct supporting municipal liability.

Long v. Kistler · filed 1981-09-28

Additionally, to recover under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, plaintiffs must allege that defendants acted under color of state law to deprive them of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. A municipality may be liable if plaintiffs allege that the challenged action “implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation or decision adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers”. Plaintiffs must identify this conduct specifically.

To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a federally protected right.

Brutsche v. City of Kent · filed 1995-06-26

To state a cause of action under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under color of state law, and (2) the defendant’s conduct deprived him of rights protected by the constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law and a violation of a federal right.

Hundert v. Bieszczat · filed 1981-11-20

All this is characterized as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). This Court’s understanding of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 has always been that plaintiffs must point not only to defendants’ actions taken “under color” of state law (obviously satisfied here) but to defendants’ violation of a federal right (in Rose-well, for example, the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection).

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Cerva v. Fulmer · filed 1984-08-07

A plaintiff suing under § 1983 must establish that some person has deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right and that the person acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Sutherland v. MI Dept Treas · filed 2003-09-18

To state a claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a person, (2) acting under color of state law, (3) deprived him of a federal right.

Section 1983 requires a claimant to show that a defendant acting under color of state law caused the deprivation of a federally protected constitutional right.

Albuquerque Commons Partnership v. City Council of Albuquerque · filed 2009-05-07

In order to prove its claim under Section 1983, ACP was required to show that the...City, “acting under color of state law, cause[d ACP] to be deprived of a federally protected constitutional right.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Town of East Hampton · filed 1998-03-18

Although the statute is not itself a source of substantive rights, it is well settled that a plaintiff states a claim for relief under § 1983 by alleging that a person acting under color of state law subjected plaintiff to deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Plaintiff here has properly pleaded the elements for a § 1983 claim by alleging that the defendants, by passing the Superstore Law, deprived it of its Constitutional right to equal protection, the sole federal right surviving the present motion to dismiss.

Section 1983 permits a plaintiff to sue for deprivation of a constitutional or federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Alcantara v. City of New York · filed 2009-06-23

A § 1983 action requires a plaintiff to “allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and [to] show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”

Section 1983 provides a civil action against a person acting under color of state law who deprives someone of rights secured by the Constitution and laws.

Glenn v. Brumby · filed 2009-06-25

In a § 1983 action, a court must determine “whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution and laws.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Bilski v. Walker · filed 2009-06-26

Section 1983 protects citizens’ constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities from being infringed by state actors. 42 U.S.C. §1983 (1994). Therefore, to establish a section 1983 cause of action, the plaintiff must show that (1) a person acting under color of state law committed the conduct complained of and (2) such conduct deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution or the laws of the United States.

Section 1983 lets a person sue for deprivation of a constitutional or federal statutory right caused by someone acting under color of state law.

Buchanan-Moore v. County of Milwaukee · filed 2009-06-29

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) the deprivation was visited upon him by a person or persons acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show a violation of a federally protected constitutional or statutory right under color of state law.

Hurdleston v. New Century Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2009-06-29

Accordingly, because there was no actual deprivation of property, no due process rights provided by the Fourteenth Amendment were violated. As such, Plaintiff has failed to establish “the violation of a federally protected constitutional or statutory right” necessary to succeed on a claim under § 1983, and Defendants’s Motion will be granted, and Plaintiffs Cross-Motion will be denied with regard to Count I.

Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to sue for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law.

Puckett v. City of Glen Cove · filed 2009-06-30

To state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), plaintiff must show a deprivation of constitutional rights “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir.1993).

A Section 1983 claim requires conduct under color of state law that deprives the plaintiff of a right secured by federal law.

Rowe v. Artis, Unpublished Decision (1-8-2001) · filed 2001-01-08

In order to establish a Section 1983 claim, two elements are required: "(1) the conduct in controversy must be committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) the conduct must deprive the plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

Section 1983 requires state action, deprivation of a federally protected right, and a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the deprivation.

Febus-Cruz v. Sauri-Santiago · filed 2009-09-03

It is not satisfied, however, in regards to defendant Cantres because plaintiffs fail to include a single specific allegation against Cantres. ... Such an assumption is insufficient, however, to sustain a section 1983 claim against Cantres. ... In the absence of any articulated claim against Cantres, and with the awareness that he need not be a party in his official capacity for Febus to obtain all of the relief that he requests, the Court DISMISSES all of Febus’s section 1983 claims against Cantres.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a constitutional or federal right by a person acting under color of state law and provides a method for vindicating rights created elsewhere.

Jackson v. Roslyn Board of Education · filed 2009-09-03

In order to state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the conduct in question deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that the acts were attributable at least in part to a person acting under color of state law. ... It is well-settled that Section 1983 “is not itself a source of substantive rights.” ... Instead, Section 1983 provides “a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred,” such as those conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Lee v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO · filed 2009-09-04

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 provides a civil action against a person acting under color of state law who deprives another of federal rights.

Knapps v. City of Oakland · filed 2009-09-08

To prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must show (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to seek relief for deprivation of a constitutional right by a person acting under color of state law.

Cooney v. Casady · filed 2009-09-11

To state a § 1983 claim, plaintiff must allege only two elements: that defendants deprived her of a constitutional right, and that they did so acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a complaint to allege that a person acting under color of state, territorial, or District of Columbia law caused the deprivation of a constitutional or federal right.

Cooper v. Johnson · filed 2009-09-11

In order to state a claim under § 1983 for a violation of a constitutional right, a complaint must allege facts sufficient to support a reasonable inference that (1) a person (2) acting under color of state, territorial, or District of Columbia law (3) subjected the plaintiff or caused the plaintiff to be subjected (4) to the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a person to act under color of state law and deprive another of federally secured rights.

Sweed v. City of El Paso Police Department · filed 2009-09-30

A cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires the conduct complained-of to be committed by a person acting under color of state law, and the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... After a review of the Appellant’s Original Petition and in line with the trial court’s findings, Appellant failed to allege a proper Section 1983 claim. We find the pleadings raise only tort claims, to which the trial court properly applied the Texas Tort Claims Act.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to plead and prove state action, deprivation of a federally protected right, and a causal connection between the defendants’ conduct and the deprivation.

Rodríguez-Ramos v. Hernández-Gregorat · filed 2009-10-02

In order for a claim to be cognizable under section 1983, a plaintiff must plead and prove three elements of the cause of action: (1) that the defendants acted under color of state law; (2) that plaintiffs were deprived of federally protected rights, privileges or immunities; and (3) that the defendants’ alleged conduct was causally connected to the plaintiffs deprivation.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show a deprivation of a constitutional or federal right caused by a person acting under color of state law.

William Harris, Jr. v. City of Circleville · filed 2009-10-02

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must set forth facts that, when construed favorably, establish: 1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; 2) caused by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege conduct under color of state law that denied a right secured by federal law.

Brace v. Massachusetts · filed 2009-12-10

In order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: 1) that the conduct complained of has been committed under color of state law, and 2) that this conduct worked a denial of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Davidson v. Bredesen · filed 2009-12-16

In order to establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the defendant was acting under the color of state law, and (2) the defendant’s conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 provides a method to vindicate federal rights and requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a constitutional or federal statutory right under color of state law.

McAllister v. TOWN OF BURNS HARBOR · filed 2010-01-15

Section 1983 is not a source of substantive rights. Rather, it provides “a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred by those parts of the United States Constitution and federal statutes that it describes.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show state action that deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Chaudhuri v. Green · filed 2010-01-15

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must allege (1) that the challenged conduct was attributable at least in part to a person acting under color of state law, and (2) that such conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show action under color of state law, deprivation of a federal right, and causation.

Maldonado v. Municipality of Barceloneta · filed 2010-01-19

Plaintiffs bring the present suit under § 1983. It is well settled law that § 1983 “is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” ... Under § 1983, a plaintiff must first show that “the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” ... Secondly, a plaintiff must show the defendant’s conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States. ... “To satisfy the second element, plaintiffs must show that the defendants’ conduct was the cause in fact of the alleged deprivation.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that defendants violated a constitutional or federal statutory right while acting under color of state law.

Skinner v. Chapman · filed 2010-01-28

In order to maintain his claims for false arrest, malicious persecution, and First Amendment retaliation, plaintiff must show that defendants violated his Constitutional or federal statutory rights — here, plaintiffs Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and his First Amendment right to engage in speech asserting his constitutional rights — and that the defendants did so while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 provides remedies for violations of rights established by the Constitution or federal laws and requires a state actor to violate a secured right.

Reisinger v. Luzerne County · filed 2010-02-02

“Section 1983 does not, by its own terms, create substantive rights; it provides only remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere in the Constitution or federal laws.”

Section 1983 provides a method for vindicating federal rights and requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of federal rights.

Jiménez-González v. Alvarez-Rubio · filed 2010-02-08

Plaintiffs bring the present suit under § 1983. It is well settled law that § 1983 “is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” ... Under § 1983, a plaintiff must first show that “the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” ... Secondly, a plaintiff must show the defendant’s conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a constitutional or federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Thomas v. ATTY. GEN. OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2010-02-08

Thus, a plaintiff must demonstrate two essential elements to maintain a claim under section 1983:(1) that the plaintiff was deprived of a “right or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States” and (2) that the plaintiff was deprived of his rights by a person acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show a deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Moore v. DARLINGTON TWP. · filed 2010-02-17

§ 1983, thereby, creates a cause of action for violations of the United States Constitution and federal laws but does not itself grant any substantive rights; in order to establish a claim under the statute, a plaintiff “ ‘must demonstrate a violation of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws' of the United States [and] that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.’ ”

Section 1983 requires a person acting under color of state law to deprive the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.

SYSTEMATIC RECYCLING, LLC v. City of Detroit · filed 2010-02-17

The plaintiffs complaint is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under section 1983, the plaintiff must establish that a person acting under color of state law deprived it of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a vehicle for suing a person acting under color of state law for deprivation of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

RBIII, L.P. v. City of San Antonio · filed 2010-02-19

Section 1983 does not convey substantive rights on its own but rather provides a vehicle by which a plaintiff may sue for deprivation of rights guaranteed under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 creates a cause of action for deprivation of constitutional or federal rights by a person acting under color of state law.

Jackson v. City of Pittsburgh · filed 2010-02-22

Section 1983, thereby, creates a cause of action for violations of the United States Constitution and federal laws but does not itself grant any substantive rights; in order to establish a claim under the statute, a plaintiff “ ‘must demonstrate a violation of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States [and] that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.’ ”

Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to seek relief from a person acting under color of state law who deprives the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

McGee v. Moon · filed 2010-02-23

To establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must assert that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... A private party may be found to have acted under color of state law to establish the first element of this cause of action only when the party “acted together with or ... obtained significant aid from state officials” and did so to such a degree that its actions may properly be characterized as “state action.” ... Mr. McGee cannot sustain a § 1983 claim against these defendants.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Morpurgo v. Incorporated Village of Sag Harbor · filed 2010-03-05

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege conduct attributable to a person acting under state law that deprived plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a federal right committed under color of state law.

Simms v. District of Columbia · filed 2010-03-30

In order to state a claim for relief in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must establish that she was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to plead and prove deprivation of an established right arising from federal law.

Willis v. DeSanti · filed 2010-04-01

In order to establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must plead and prove, inter alia, that he or she has been deprived of an established statutory, constitutional, or other right arising from federal law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the challenged conduct was committed under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal laws.

Doe v. Banos · filed 2010-04-26

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the conduct challenged was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived him of his rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a civil remedy against persons who, under color of state law, deprive a person of federally protected rights.

Davis v. Bacigalupi · filed 2010-04-29

42 U.S.C. § 1983 permits citizens of the United States to seek legal and equitable relief from persons who, under color of state law, deprive them of federally protected rights. Inyo County, Cal. v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Cmty. of the Bishop Colony, 538 U.S. 701, 708, 123 S.Ct. 1887, 155 L.Ed.2d 933 (2003); see 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus, to state a cause of action under § 1983, the Plaintiff must plead and prove (1) that some person deprived her of a federal right, and (2) that the person has done so under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federally protected right.

Patterson v. Rodgers · filed 2010-04-28

In order to state a valid claim for relief under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, the plaintiff must satisfy a two-part test by alleging facts that demonstrate: (1) the defendant acted under color of state law and (2) the plaintiff was thereby deprived of a constitutionally or federally protected right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Bisgeier v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2010-06-08

To succeed on a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must show that the defendants’ conduct (1) occurred under color of state law; and (2) deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 requires allegations of a federally protected right’s deprivation, action under color of law, and a causal connection between the defendant and the deprivation.

Pease v. Burns · filed 2010-06-28

An actionable section 1983 claim must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate: (1) the deprivation of a federally protected right; (2) action taken under color of law; and (3) a causal connection between the actor and the deprivation.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant caused a constitutional injury while acting under color of state law.

Twyman v. Burton · filed 2010-12-02

To state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1983, Twyman’s Complaint must allege that Mears caused her to suffer a constitutional injury while acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Mollo v. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners · filed 2011-01-20

A prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires showing that a person acting ... under color of state law deprived a plaintiff of a federal right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege conduct under color of state law that deprived someone of federal rights.

Smith v. Beasley · filed 2011-03-14

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege: “1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and 2) that the conduct deprived a person of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that defendants acting under color of state law deprived or will deprive him of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Cooey v. Kasich · filed 2011-07-08

Thus, in order to prevail on a § 1983 claim, Plaintiff must show that, while acting under color of state law, Defendants deprived or will deprive him of a right secured by the Federal Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a civil action against a person acting under color of state law who deprives another of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

Patel v. Kent School District · filed 2011-07-11

To succeed on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right. ... The district court properly dismissed Patel’s § 1983 civil rights claim at summary judgment. The special-relationship exception and the state-created danger exception do not apply in this case.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a constitutional or federal right under color of state law.

American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees Local 2401 v. District of Columbia · filed 2011-07-12

To state a claim for relief in an action brought under § 1983, [plaintiffs] must establish that they were deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a federal right caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Terry Williams, Jr. v. Sandel · filed 2011-07-13

Stating a claim for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires a plaintiff to establish “the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States” that is “caused by a person acting under color of state law.” Marvin v. City of Taylor, 509 F.3d 234, 243 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right.

Titus v. City of Prairie City · filed 2011-07-14

In general, to establish that a defendant is liable for a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right.”

Section 1983 permits plaintiffs to sue state officials for violating their federal rights.

Braun v. Maynard · filed 2011-07-21

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs must allege facts suggesting that their federal rights have been violated by state officials.

Section 1983 provides a method for enforcing federal rights and requires proof that the defendant acted under color of law and deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.

Doe v. Big Walnut Local School District Board of Education · filed 2011-07-27

This statute “is not itself a source of substantive right, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979)). To prevail on a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that the defendant acted under color of law; and (2) that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the United States Constitution or federal statute. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); see also Wittstock v. Mark A. Van Sile, Inc., 330 F.3d 899, 902 (6th Cir.2003).

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove state action and deprivation of a constitutional right.

Toussie v. County of Suffolk · filed 2011-08-02

For claims under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that “(1) the challenged conduct was attributable at least in part to a person who was acting under color of state law and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”

Section 1983 provides a civil action against a person acting under color of state law who deprives a citizen or other person of rights secured by the Constitution or federal laws.

Havard v. Wayne County · filed 2011-08-19

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) a right secured by the Constitution or a federal statute has been violated; and (2) the violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

A § 1983 complaint must allege a violation of a federal right proximately caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Hill v. City of Oklahoma City · filed 2011-09-14

In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) a violation of rights protected by the federal Constitution or created by federal statute or regulation, (2) proximately caused (3) by the conduct of a ‘person’ (4) who acted under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to prove that the challenged conduct was under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right.

Burkhardt v. Lindsay · filed 2011-09-19

For claims under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that “(1) the challenged conduct was attributable at least in part to a person who was acting under color of state law and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”

Section 1983 provides a civil remedy against a person acting under color of state law who deprives another of constitutional or statutory rights.

Pierce v. Bennett · filed 2011-12-12

Section 1983 imposes civil liability on a person acting under color of state law who deprives another of the “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “Section 1983 creates no substantive rights, but merely provides remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere.” DeSilva v. State Medical Bd. of Ohio, 2010 WL 1644209, at *7 (S.D.Ohio April 23, 2010) (citing City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 85 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985)). Section 1983 has two basic requirements: “(1) state action that (2) deprived an individual of federal statutory or constitutional rights.” Id. (citing Flint v. Ky. Dept. of Corrections, 270 F.3d 340, 351 (6th Cir.2001)).

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a constitutional right by a person acting under color of state law.

Evans v. St. Lucie County Jail · filed 2011-12-13

To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) there was an act or omission that deprived him of a constitutional right, privilege, or immunity and (2) the act or omission was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that an official acting under color of state law caused the deprivation of a federal right.

Millman v. Inglish · filed 2011-12-14

To state a claim under § 1983, Appellants must allege that an “official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right.”

Section 1983 provides a vehicle for vindicating violations of federal rights and requires a plaintiff to show a deprivation by a person acting under color of state law.

Shultz v. Allegheny County · filed 2011-12-16

In general, § 1983 does not itself create substantive rights, but instead provides a vehicle for vindicating a violation of a federal right. ... A cause of action under § 1983 has two elements: a plaintiff must prove (1) a violation of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the constitution and laws of the United States (2) that was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1204 (3d Cir.1996); Kelly v. Borough of Sayreville, 107 F.3d 1073, 1077 (3d Cir.1997); Berg v. Cty. of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 268 (3d Cir.2000) (“The Plaintiff must demonstrate that a person acting under color of law deprived him of a federal right.”) (citing Groman, 47 F.3d at 633). It is not contested that the defendants were acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted under color of state law and deprived the plaintiff of a constitutionally protected federal right.

Novotny v. Tripp County, SD · filed 2011-12-19

“To state a claim under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], a plaintiff must allege (1) that the defendant acted under color of state law, and (2) that the alleged conduct deprived the plaintiff of a constitutionally protected federal right.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived him of federal constitutional or statutory rights.

Bridgewater v. Taylor · filed 2011-12-21

To state a claim under § 1983, Bridgewater must show that, while acting under color of state law, defendants deprived him of federal constitutional or statutory rights.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal rights committed by persons acting under color of state law.

Cook v. Popplewell · filed 2011-12-22

To be entitled to relief under § 1983, Cook must establish: (1) that she has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) that the defendants, here Russell County and Popplewell in her official capacity as Russell County Clerk, are responsible for the violation.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a person deprived him of a federal right while acting under color of state law.

Ware v. Donahue · filed 2011-12-22

When bringing a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right, and that the person who caused the deprivation acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 provides a civil cause of action when a person acting under color of state law deprives someone of rights secured by federal law.

Floyd v. County of Kent · filed 2012-01-06

Section 1983 creates a civil cause of action against a defendant who, while acting under color of state law, deprives another person of the “rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” ... To state a claim for relief under § 1983, “a plaintiff must allege a violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the violation was ... committed by a person acting under color of state law.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that defendants acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or federal statutory right.

Rojas-Velazquez v. Figueroa-Sancha · filed 2012-03-29

To make out a viable cause of action under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendants, while acting under color of state law, deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of federal constitutional or statutory rights and caused the injury.

Munoz v. City of Union City · filed 2012-05-11

To succeed on a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the “plaintiff must show that the defendants, acting under color of law, violated the plaintiff‟s federal constitutional or statutory rights, and thereby caused the complained of injury.” ... In particular, the plaintiff must prove two elements: “(1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Dunn v. Spivey · filed 2012-05-15

Without regard to whether or not Dunn obtained tenure under the Tenure Act, to succeed on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, Dunn must show that either Spivey or the individual members of the Macon County Board of Commissioners and the Jackson County Board of Commissioners, in their official capacities, deprived him of his constitutional and statutory rights while acting under color of state law. Thus, if Dunn cannot show that one of these remaining defendants terminated his employment, then Dunn’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim cannot succeed.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against persons acting under color of state law who deprive someone of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Mears v. McCulley · filed 2012-07-19

42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a remedial vehicle: that is, it provides a means to seek redress against state and local governmental entities and officials whose conduct under color of state law deprives a plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or federal statutes. ... A claim asserted under that statute has two essential elements: a person whose actions were committed under color of state law, and deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 creates liability for a person acting under color of state law who deprives someone of a federal right, but it does not create substantive federal rights.

Williams v. Jefferson County, Alabama, Anne-Marie Adams · filed 2012-07-23

Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides civil liability for any person who, while acting under color of state law, deprives a citizen or other person within the jurisdiction of the United States of any federal right, privilege, or immunity. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983, however, is not a source of substantive federal rights. Almand v. DeKalb County, Georgia, 103 F.3d 1510, 1512 (11th Cir. ... 1997). Liability under § 1983 “is appropriate solely for violations of federally protected rights.” Id. at 1513.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivation of constitutional or federal rights by a person acting under color of state law.

Rodríguez-Díaz v. Cruz-Colón · filed 2012-07-23

Section 1983 creates a remedy for those who are deprived of the rights, privileges, or immunities granted to them by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... To succeed on a Section 1983 claim, A plaintiff must prove that someone has deprived him of a right protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States and the perpetrator acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

Norton v. Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados · filed 2012-09-24

A section 1983 action must establish two elements: (1) the conduct complained of was carried out under color of state law and (2) this conduct deprived appellants of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for deprivation of federal rights by a person acting under color of state or District of Columbia law, including when an official municipal policy or custom causes the deprivation.

Evangelou v. District of Columbia · filed 2012-11-05

A plaintiff bringing a § 1983 claim “must allege both (1) that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the defendant acted ‘under color of’ the law of a state, territory or the District of Columbia.” ... As a municipal corporation, the District is a “person” within the meaning of the statute and is therefore subject to liability “when an official policy or custom causes [a] complainant to suffer a deprivation of constitutional” or other federal right.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show that state actors deprived or will deprive him of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litigation · filed 2012-11-05

Thus, in order to prevail on his § 1983 claim, Hartman must show that, while acting under color of state law, Defendants deprived or will deprive him of a right secured by the Federal Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a constitutional or federal statutory right under color of state law.

Dutton v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2012-11-08

To establish a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff “must establish that [he was] deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law.”

Section 1983 imposes civil liability on persons acting under color of state law who deprive others of federal rights and provides a method for vindicating rights created elsewhere.

Mikulec v. Town of Cheektowaga · filed 2012-11-13

The federal claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Civil liability is imposed under § 1983 only upon persons who, acting under color of state law, deprive an individual of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. On its own, § 1983 does not provide a source of substantive rights, but rather, a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere in the federal statutes and Constitution.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege a deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

M.C. ex rel. Thurman v. Dorsey · filed 2012-11-16

To state a valid cause of action under § 1983, plaintiffs must (1) allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and (2) demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Robinson v. Temple University Health Services · filed 2012-12-12

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts that establish (1) the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the defendant acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a federal right caused by a person acting under color of state law.

Nolan v. Thomas Jenkins, Sr. · filed 2013-01-08

Section 1983 requires that a plaintiff establish “(1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States (2) caused by a person acting under the color of state law.”

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff alleging discrimination to show a constitutional rights violation by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Alers v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2013-01-24

To establish a § 1983 discrimination claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate a violation of a constitutionally-secured right committed by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law that deprives a person of a federal right.

Maurice Clark, Jr. v. Punshon · filed 2013-03-19

A § 1983 claim has two essential elements: (1) the conduct complained of must be “committed by a person acting under color of state law”; and (2) this conduct must “deprive[] a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 184 (3d Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived her of a federal right.

Shehada v. Tavss · filed 2013-03-27

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that a person, under color of state law, deprived her of a right protected under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right under color of state law.

Florio v. Canty · filed 2013-07-22

To prevail in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he has been denied a constitutional or federal statutory right and that the deprivation occurred under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to establish a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by someone acting under color of state law.

Rogge ex rel. Rogge v. City of Richmond · filed 2014-01-31

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case under Section 1983 for the deprivation of civil rights by establishing: (1) a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by an individual acting under the color of state law.

Section 1983 requires a complaint to allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Wilson v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2014-04-09

In a § 1983 action, the complaint must specify “the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and . . . that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” ... In sum, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Mr. Wilson failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Lewis v. Secretary, Department of Corrections · filed 2014-10-16

To prevail in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must show that he or she was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Section 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federally guaranteed right and action under color of state law.

Topper v. Progressive County Mutual Ins, et · filed 2015-03-02

Topper’s complaint does not allege a violation of a federally guaranteed right or contend that the defendants acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 creates a cause of action against a person acting under color of state law who abridges rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Lasky v. McHugh · filed 2015-03-17

“Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, abridges ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” ... Lasky does not allege a violation under the color of state law. Therefore, Lasky’s Section 1983 claims are being dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a constitutional right caused by a defendant acting under color of state law.

Holloran v. Duncan · filed 2015-03-18

A plaintiff bringing suit under the statute must demonstrate that “he was denied a constitutional right, and that the. deprivation was caused by a defendant acting under color of state law.” Carl v. Muskegon Cnty., 763 F.3d 592, 595 (6th Cir.2014).

Section 1983 provides a procedural vehicle for seeking redress of constitutional or statutory rights violations and requires action under color of state law.

Lee v. City of Richmond · filed 2015-03-18

The statute, of course, does not create a substantive cause of action. It merely provides a procedural vehicle giving access to the federal courts in which to seek redress of violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights. ... Thus, to prevail, Lee must establish that he was “deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law.” ... There is no dispute that Moore was acting under color of state law at the relevant time.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for deprivation of federally guaranteed rights under color of state law.

Topper v. Progressive County Mutual Ins, et · filed 2015-03-23

Topper’s complaint does not allege the violation of a federally guaranteed right or contend that the defendants acted under color of state law. See § 1983; Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S. Ct. 1657, 1661 (2012).

Section 1983 lets a person sue a state actor for depriving them of a constitutional or statutory right through state action.

Gonzalez v. Dooling · filed 2015-03-23

To establish liability under. § 1983, all Plaintiff must show is that (1) he was deprived of a constitutional or statutory right, (2) there was a causal connection between the state actor and the deprivation, and (3) state action.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Etheredge v. Henry · filed 2015-03-24

To establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he was deprived of a federal right; and (2) the person who deprived him of that right acted under color of state law.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for constitutional or federal-law deprivations committed by a person acting under color of state law.

Ewing v. Cumberland County · filed 2015-03-25

Section 1983 does not create substantive rights; • it merely provides a remedy for deprivations of rights established elsewhere in the Constitution or federal laws.

Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to show deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Strong v. Grambling State University · filed 2015-03-25

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Strong must demonstrate that: (1) he was deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the constitution and laws of the United States; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Strong has made no such showing, nor could he at trial.